Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2174; 1987(14)ECC11; 1987(12)LC1041(SC); 1987(31)ELT321(SC); JT1987(3)SC394; 1987(2)SCALE424; 1987(Supp)SCC374; [1987]3SCR1068; [1988]68STC415(SC)
1. This appeal under Section 35-L of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereafter referred to as the 'Act) is directed against the Appellate order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The appellant buys white paper from the market on which duty has already been paid and manufactures flock paper out of it. According to the appellant it is registered as a Small Scale Industry with the Directorate of Industry, Government of Maharashtra and employs nine workers in all. The process of conversion of paper into flock paper is said to be as follow:Solution of P.V.A. Emulsion thickened with c.m.c. and coloured with dyes is applied on one side of paper manually with the help of hand-made screen; then flock is sprinkled P by hand with the help of man-made sheeves. Thereafter paper is put on dryers for drying and finally when the paper is dried extra flock is removed manually by tapping with fingers and the paper becomes ready.2. The appellant had made it clear to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988Supp(1)SCC806
Order The High Court was clearly in error in holding that the suit was bad for non-compliance with Section 326 of the Municipalities Act which requires prior notice to be issued to the Municipality. A notice was in fact issued addressed to the President, Municipal Board. The High Court held that it was not a proper notice as it was not addressed to the Municipal Board. We do not agree with this hypertechnical view taken by the High Court. We think that it was a proper notice and that there was compliance with the requirement of Section 326. In fact we notice that the suit was contested by the President on behalf of the Municipality. If the President could properly represent the Municipality in the suit and contest the same, we do not see why a notice addressed to him should be held to be not a proper notice. The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for disposal on merits. The High Court is requested to dispose of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2001; 1987CriLJ1919; JT1987(3)SC375; 1987(2)SCALE345; (1987)4SCC207; [1987]3SCR1061; 1987(2)LC600(SC)
1. The petitioner who was aged about 18 years along with one Subeh Singh was involved in a case of murder of one Ranbir Singh and he was convicted for an offence Under Section 302, 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment by judgment and order dated 22nd May, 1980. The petitioner being admittedly below 21 years of age at the time of alleged commission offence was sent to Borstal Institution in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Borstal Act, 1926. It has been stated that the petitioner has already undergone a period of about 6 years, 10 months and 11 days detention in jail and together with remissions earned by him it comes to over 10 years. It has been further stated that he is entitled to be released both under the Punjab Borstal Act as well as under paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual and has therefore prayed for his pre-mature release as provided under the Punjab Borstal Act and also under paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual. In the counter-affidavit filed on b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2137; JT1987(3)SC360; 1987(2)KLT777(SC); 1987(2)SCALE342; (1987)4SCC71; 1987(2)LC482(SC)
1. The defendant is the appellant in this appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit out of which the appeal arises for a decree '(a) specifying and demarcating the property comprised in the plaint schedule as per the terms of the agreement dated June 25, 1960, referred to above, after taking a plan of the property; (b) for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their people from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property and in any other manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same' and other reliefs. The case of the plaintiff was that he had purchased the plaint schedule property of the extent of 1000 acres from Sha Manikalal Shivraj and Dr. C.C. John under a registered sale deed dated December 30, 19S9 after obtaining the permission of the Collector of Kozhikode on January 8, 1958. After purchasing the property, he obtained permission to fell timber and clear an area of 500 acr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2043; JT1987(3)SC357; 1987(1)KLT462(SC); 1987LabIC1890; (1987)IILLJ504SC; 1987(2)SCALE340; 1987Supp(1)SCC582; [1987]3SCR1057; 1987(2)LC644(SC)
1. In this appeal by special leave the appellant, a Bus Conductor of the Haryana Roadways, has challenged the validity of the order of termination of his service on the ground of failure of the punishing authority to give any reason for the impugned order in violation of the principles of natural justice.2. A charge was levelled against the appellant that he did not issue tickets to nine passengers, although he had taken the fare from each of them. A disciplinary proceeding was started against the appellant. The Enquiry Officer, after considering the allegations constituting the charge, the plea of the appellant in defence and the evidence adduced by the parties including the appellant, held that the charge against the appellant was proved. The punishing authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and by the impugned order terminated the service of the appellant.3. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a suit challenging the legality of the order of termination. It was contended...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(4)SC152a; 1988Supp(1)SCC536a
ORDERA.P. Sen, J.1. Special leave granted.2. On the last occasion on November 26, 1986, we were informed that the parties had arrived at a settlement and a prayer was made for leave to compound the offence and we accordingly called for a report. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kota by his report dated July 30,1987 has certified that the parties appeared before him and stated that they had entered into a compromise.3. The offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not compoundable and therefore we examined the records to satisfy us whether the offence is made out. We find it difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Section 307. Though the appellant assaulted the deceased with a sword, the injuries ascribed to him were on a vital part of the body i.e. neck. The testimony of the doctor shows that the injuries were of a simple nature and were not likely to cause death. That being so, the appellant, could only be convicted under Section 324 of the I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2005; JT1987(3)SC378; 1987LabIC1659; (1987)IILLJ519SC; 1987(2)SCALE409; 1987Supp(1)SCC345; [1987]3SCR1010
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, holding that the appellant was appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) as a direct recruit and directing that he shall be accorded seniority from the date when he joined the post on such appointment.2. On December 30, 1968, the appellant, who was then an undergraduate, was appointed to the post of Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police. During his service in that post, he passed the B.A. Examination of the Osmania University in April 1971. Pursuant to an advertisement in the local newspaper inviting applications for the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), the appellant applied for the post and appeared in the written test and viva voce test. He was selected and appointed to the post on December 14, 1976 on probation for two years along with thirty seven others. After the completion of his probationary period, he was confirmed in the post on November 29...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2074; JT1987(3)SC370; 1987(2)SCALE351; 1987Supp(1)SCC329; [1987]3SCR1049; 1987(2)LC637(SC)
1. The short question involved in these special leave petitions is whether the proper criterion to adopt for selection of candidates belonging to the category 'eminent sportsmen', for admission to the MB.B.S. course, is pre-eminence in sports, and not academic excellence. In the prospectus issued by the State Government of Tamil Nadu for admission to the M.B.B.S. course for 1986-87 in the Government Medical Colleges in the State, there was reservation of three seats for the category 'eminent sportsmen' as specified in category (in) to Annexure I, also indicating the order of preference. The relevant provision reads:(iii) Eminent Sportsmen,The order of preference is as follows:(a) participation at International level, the candidate being sponsored by a national body.(b) participation at National level, the candidate being sponsored by a State Body or University.(c) participation at State level, the candidate being sponsored by Zonal or District Association.Sponsorship Certificate should...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2177; JT1987(3)SC444; 1987(2)SCALE400; (1987)4SCC273; [1987]3SCR1045; 1987(2)LC604(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is confined solely to the question of interest. In other words, the entitlement of interest on the amount awarded by Arbitrator for the requisition of the premises under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1952 is the issue. The principles upon which the compensation on this aspect is payable are by now well settled. In Satinder Singh and Ors. v. Amrao Singh and Ors. : [1961]3SCR676 this Court reiterated the principles at page 694 of the report as follows:In Inglewood Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. v. New Burnswick Electric Power Commission [1928] A.C. 429 it was held by the Privy Council that 'upon the expropriation of land under statutory power, whether for the purpose of private gain or of good to the public at large, the owner is entitled to interest upon the principal sum awarded from the date when possession was taken, unless the statute clearly shows a contrary intention.' Dealing with the argument that the expropriation with whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2078; JT1987(3)SC346; (1987)92PLR409; 1987(2)SCALE349; (1987)4SCC75
1. This is an appeal by the tenant against an order of eviction granted by the Rent Controller and maintained by the appellate authority and revision petition against which was dismissed by the High Court. The eviction was sought on the ground of arrears of rent. It was alleged that the shop in dispute was let out to the appellant tenant @ Rs. 5000/-per annum whereas according to the appellant tenant the rent was Rs. 2,500/- per annum and not Rs. 5,000/- per annum. It was pleaded in the application on behalf of the landlord that the rent note was executed on March 25, 1975. This was for one year and the rent fixed was Rs. 5,000/-. According to the tenant, it was pleaded that the rent was Rs. 2,500/-. The signature on the rent note were disputed.2. After recording evidence the courts below have come to the conclusion that the rent note was executed by the appellant-tenant. The rent note mentions that it is for one year. It appears in evidence that initially Rs. 5,000/- were paid by the ...
Tag this Judgment!